I have been blown away with the innovative 3D printer approach involving a three

I have been blown away with the innovative 3D printer approach involving a three motor, “parallel robot”, stationary build platform design. Similar to those typically utilized in multi-axis CNC machines, and automated assembly lines; which is now being applied to the impressive SeeMeCNC.com 's “Rostock MAX” 3D printer.

Would absolutely, love to hear some feedback as to how folks feel about embracing this new design paradigm for 3D printing, and any and all of the advantages or disadvantages they feel it offers? Just seems rather revolutionary to me… (Perhaps I’m really naively overlooking some inherent issues?)

<If you’re not familiar with this product and design, dive in below for a good dose of video links showing off not only SeeMeCNC’s demos; as well as some generic RepRap, “Rostock” inspired machines. GREAT STUFF!>

The Rostock design seems to not only be extremely price competitive, (in the $900+/- range for a kit from SeeMeCNC’s requiring approximately 8 hrs to assemble,) it also boast some leading speed, accuracy and build dimension benefits. (The lack of table/build surface movement, provides equal build speed for all three axis. As well as apparently flawless circular design results and much taller model designs.)

Demo Video Link: http://youtu.be/3Lg3IokWYeQ
(Not sure why their main demo video, is that of a timelaps? There are many others on YouTube, by end users which demonstrated the impressive “normal” speed of the printer.) Perhaps a much better, quick explanation of the Rostock design, from a RepRap user: http://youtu.be/T05N0KGO-48

The SeeMeCNC kit currently lacks a dual (or triple) color extruding option. However, the control board being included, certainly supports this as a later upgrade; and this opportunity is boasted on their ordering website. Again, I just enjoy seeing this product in action, and can’t help but assume this printing platform and its’ unique design features might well serve as a slam dunk of sorts, given the current market offerings in this price range? But I am simply a perspective customer at this point. :frowning:

Here are some additional, impressive RepRap versions of Rostock derivatives, demonstrated within these 2 video links: http://youtu.be/Zu5JFb8FwLY And another, printing a Klein Bottle http://youtu.be/nkAwOxA0lq8

Apparently the obvious design distinction which avoids any movement of the actual build surface, (while depending solely on the extruder arms to provide all the X, Y & Z work;) not only allows for quicker build times, but also helps in preventing build flaws. Since potentially invasive movements of a developing model and any resulting model and material momentum, etc. is avoided during the entire build. (Even unintended “curling” flaws during printing are sometimes attributed to uneven cooling, due to the subsequent airflow during model movement; especially in the case of sharp corners and/or thin design features. Another potential downfall, easily prevented by maintaining a stationary build platform.)

I assume this higher stability might in some cases, provide for even taller & perhaps “weaker” designs than those which would be advisable or attempted on more “traditional”, 2 axis print head designs. Or at the very least, the overall success rates of any printed designs would be very appreciated.

Love to have any and all feedback from those with more experience than me. Which would invite just about anyone’s opinion. :wink:

(Incidentally, They are also experimentation with an inverted design which keeps the extruder completely fixed, and the table provides all three axis of movement, in order to create a less complicated approach to utilizing plastic pellets in a granular extruder, rather than the traditional roll of plastic filament. http://youtu.be/j8B1PypVCvU )

This reads more like an advertisement than part of a discussion. =P

There are some quirks about the delta design too, though none of them really all that crazy. The interior resolution of a part is less than that of the outside of the part. A good visualization can be found here: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-1p6cBfgiamQ/UI0gqJ1tioI/AAAAAAAAAKw/10McbTnzDco/s1600/resolution.jpg

Also the machine takes a lot of Z height in relation to build volume, which is a “bad” thing, but I feel a lot of people have room to spare in the Z direction. I know I sure do.

Other than that, the rostock mini that I’m doing has been nothing but a big enjoyment to put together, requiring practically no alignment at all.

Even still @ThantiK , it’s an interesting post. The more I find out about Rostock designs the more interested I become. I probably won’t have one as my primary printer, but it’d be fun as hell to tinker with.

the bowden cable requires some rather extreme retract settings compared to having the extruder mounted on the head… The avr8 core struggles to do the IK fast enough last time I checked, Smoothie and similar cortex-m3 boards should have an easier time of it.

I’m interested in the rostock myself, although haven’t gotten to compiling a shopping list just yet

I’ll take the comment, “this reads more like an ad,” as a compliment. :slight_smile: And possibly a resume entry, should I ever choose to apply for an Ad Copy position. :wink:

I think were related to parallel robots and their possibly inevitable offerings for advancements in the “hobbiest” & plastic extruded, 3D printing, it helps to understand how this control and mobility is currently utilized in “mainstream” applications. For instance, when serving CNC efforts and & the world of high speed automated production.

For instance, observe this example below: a demo video of an assembly line production robot, utilizing 4 armatures rather than three. In this case notice the motion is derived from pivoting motors at the top of the machine; rather then the belt driven system from below utilized on the Rostock. http://youtu.be/0-Kpv-ZOcKY

I think a good point is made about needed software refinements or even drastic advancements (if that was the reason for mentioning the “avr8 core” & “cortex-m3” were implying ) in order to reap the rewards of this design; and perhaps, completely different controllers or even source model design translations; might need to all be reconsidered to properly serve this platform, is a good one!

I wonder if anyone else see a serious need to consider a new paradigm of model translation and extrusion? Meaning, one that might even be able to take advantage of a full 6-axis of control; for say, improved finishing of various surfaces and structural elements?
…i.e., here is a 6-axis, CNC demo. Again, very different method of propulsion of the head. This time using a screw based arm control, rather than a belt or pivot. (Possibilities seem endless; and many would appear to be cost effective.) http://youtu.be/G_UmhUjZhNo

And I agree, I seriously doubt the issue of a less efficient equipment height in relation to the build volume’s Z height, is a real problem for most. Such a vast majority of current machine designs would never allow, or encourage anything to be stacked on them. Plus, I really haven’t seen to many (any) shops or production environment examples environments shelving their printers versus utilizing a desk or counter.

Love this discussion, especially the videos you were able to find @Michael_Hulme

Although, to counter your point about no one stacking machines, Ultimaker had a pretty nice “vending wall” setup that I find awfully interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWPnGS2dGB8&feature=youtube_gdata_player

I guess if stacking your printers were the goal, (nice problem to have!) I wouldn’t arrange more than two high, with shelved Rostacks. It does seem you could places more, side-by-side than traditional square machines, but I’ve not compared footprint specs.

(And to an earlier point. No I have no affiliation, association or agenda in connection with any organization our company. My profile and links are all up to date.)

I am also highly interested in the Rostock Max. I’m new to the low-cost 3D printing market (although I have printed on one of the really expensive machines several years ago in college). This design seems to be very promising. I’m hoping to see more printed example photos online though, so far there’s not many of them.